Tuesday

And then to top the day off, I think I'll burn an American flag in the backyard. You might want to join me.

I made this suggestion in print a few years ago; some readers took exception. I was invited to move to France, to self-deport to the infernal regions or to perform remarkable anatomical contortions upon myself.

Actually, I have no intention or desire to burn an American flag on July 4. But I deeply esteem the right bestowed on me and you by the Constitution and the Supreme Court to do so, if I should, for some reason, wish to.

The fact you might think that I shouldn't do it — and I generally agree with you — is separate from an appreciation of the fact I have a right to do it.

Not every country allows its citizens to exercise such freedoms, and I'm not talking just about totalitarian countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. In France and Austria, you can be sent to prison for six months for burning a flag, and in Germany for up to five years.

In fact, a glance over Wikipedia's list of flag statutes indicates that most countries have laws that prohibit burning or other desecrations of national symbols. They enforce these laws with varying degrees of rigidity. But the United States is in a small minority — along with a few countries, such as Canada and Belgium — that decline to make flag burning illegal.

It's a paradox: Our dedication to the right of free speech is such that we permit the destruction of the very symbols of that right.

But it's a paradox James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," would appreciate. According to biographer Richard Brookhiser, when Madison was helping to draft a Declaration of Rights for Virginia in 1776, he hesitated over proposed language that would have provided for the "fullest toleration" of the practice of religion, which, implied that the state has the right to determine what will be tolerated.

Madison proposed instead: "All men are equally entitled to the full and free exercise" of religion. He preferred to view the free practice of religion as a natural right, rather than a right granted by the state. This principle was embodied in our national constitution.

In other words, the right itself precedes the state's prerogative to grant the right. Thus, Americans have an obligation that exceeds even the government's to tolerate free speech, even speech that they find repugnant.

I was thinking about this in connection with the NFL players who have chosen to kneel respectfully during the national anthem in order to bring attention to unresolved racial injustices. Clearly these are "speech" acts, and we should be extremely leery of repressing them, even if they make us uncomfortable.

The dark flip side of free speech is coerced speech. Remember: President Trump hasn't indicated any appreciation for the NFL's recent policy change that allows players who prefer not to stand for the anthem to remain in the locker room. He said, "You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or you shouldn't be playing … maybe they shouldn't be in the country."

Notice the word "proudly." And players whose consciences won't allow them to stand "proudly"? They shouldn't be in the country.

Coerced patriotism is a hallmark of authoritarianism. Trump recently said that he wished he could get "my people" to stand at attention when he speaks, like Kim Jong Un's do. He said he was joking.

But Kim Jong Un doesn't have the confidence in himself, his government and his people to allow the kind of plain-spoken protests that we allow here.

Have a splendid July 4. Don't burn a flag. But take a moment to celebrate your inherent right — and that of your fellow citizens — to protest as you see fit. That is what makes our nation truly exceptional.

John M. Crisp, an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service, lives in Georgetown, Texas. He can be emailed at jcrispcolumns@gmail.com.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.